Which is harder: Diamonds or Buckyballs?

[Mangetout]

I suppose Buckyballs are too tiny to be able to be able to physically measure their hardness (or are they), and I know they are strong*, but are they harder than diamonds?

*[sup]Strength, hardness, toughness not being same thing.[/sup]

[muttrox]

WAG – I would think diamonds. They are tetrahedral, whereas a buckyball is basically spherical (like a soccer ball). I would think a tetrahedral matrix is inherently more difficult to break apart, which I equate with hardness. Not sure I know the real definitions of these terms though!

[JS_Princeton]

Diamond is definitely harder. Buckyballs have no extended coordinate system. Diamonds repeat the tetrahedral Carbon forever and ever and ever, making them the hardest materials known yet.

[grimpixie]

*Originally posted by JS Princeton *
**Diamond is definitely harder. Buckyballs have no extended coordinate system. Diamonds repeat the tetrahedral Carbon forever and ever and ever, making them the hardest materials known yet. **

Having said that, they DO burn rather easily…

Liked this story:

Had an interesting thing occur once when a home burned down and a rather “costly” jewelry piece was lost. It turned out that what was thought to be a diamond was found amid the melted gold remains of the setting. The
stone was completely intact and undamaged. It was later discovered to be a cubic zirconia (fake diamond) that would not burn. The fellow’s wife was not impressed that her husband would have fooled her into thinking he had spent big money on a diamond when he had actually bought her a
vastly less expensive cubic zirconia.

Gp

[Squink]

Some of the fullerenes (buckyball relatives) are nearly as hard as diamond.

[Enola_Straight]

Slight hijack:

It is believed that Carbon Nitride is harder than diamond.